He talks about the 2016 president ial race, which began with the entry with ted cruz and rand paul. This is just under an hour. Dave cook i am dave cook from the monitor. Thanks for coming. Our guest is senator mike lee, and it is an opportunity for what the senators new book calls a compliant press corps that is all too willing to blame republicans for anything and everything. [laughter] i guest tells of a unique childhood where his dad served as solicitor general under president reagan. Starting at age 10, he began attending Supreme Court arguments. Fellow Mormon Harry Reid was a friend of the lee family, and as the story goes, once locked a preteen mike lee in a garage. Overcoming scars that might have caused, senator lee earned his bachelors degree at Brigham Young university. He clerked for several judges, twice for samuel alito once when he was an appellate judge, and later on the Supreme Court. Our guest was in private practice in 2010 when he stunned the political establishment and defeated Robert Bennett for the gop Senate Nomination from utah. The almanac of american politics says he was the youngest senator when he took office in january 2011. The senators new book is called our lost constitution the willful subversion of americas founding document. It is his second book. So much for biographies. On to the mechanics. No live blogging or tweeting. No filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway. There is no embargo when the session ends. To help you resist the selfie urge, we will email several pictures to all reporters as soon as the breakfast ends. As regular attendees know, if you would like to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal, and i will happily call on one and all. Well start by offering the guest an opportunity to make opening comments and then moved to questions from around the table. Thank you for doing this, sir. Senator lee two are very much. Senator lee thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here with all of you to talk about my book. I have enjoyed it immensely. I wrote the book for the simple reason that i think when you talk about the constitution in the abstract, it is a little easy to make it boring. I was raised in a home where we talk about the constitution routinely around the dinner table. I was about 30 when i realized that every family does that. As my wife explained to me, a few years ago, as i was trying to get my own children interested in the constitution she said whether you are talking to your own children or to friends or, you know, people of any age, it will make it a lot more and thing if you can tell it in the form of the story. If you can tell the story behind something. It makes it not only more palatable, but it makes it interesting. I wanted to tell a few of the stories behind the constitution, stories that inform us as to the reasons why certain provisions were put into the document in the first place, and also tell some of the stories about how some of those same provisions have fallen into disrepair, or at least fallen into obscurity and how best they can be restored. One of the stories that i really enjoy in the book is this story about how Alexander Hamilton actually openly advocated for a monarchy at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. He did so at his own political peril and detriment. A lot of people believed this may have been something that sunk any president ial ambitions he might have otherwise had. His idea of the monarchy was, of course, soundly rejected by the convention, and with good reason. They were very concerned, first and foremost, about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of a few, or especially the hands of a one. That is why spoke about the fact that it is a little ironic that we have consolidated so much power in the executive branch in modern times. We have done so, moreover, in a bipartisan fashion. This has not been one party or the other that has done this. Nor has it been the executive who has simply seized all of this power. Congress has been all too willing, and even eager, to immigration. It is an easy way for congress to avoid accountability for making laws. It is a very easy way for congress to accept all of the glory and none of the blame when identifying certain broad policy aspirations, but not having to actually do the dirty work of setting the policy. These are some of the things i discuss, talking in that instance about the legislative powers clause, but in other instances i talk about the erosion of other things like the origination clause, the fourth amendment, and other aspects of the constitution that i consider important. They are far too often negelcted. With that, i look forward to your questions. Mr. Cook let me do one or two below my own, and it will go to eric watson, michael, burgess, phil, francine, sue davis, and lisa to start. Let me do a constitutional question or two in the thought that my colleagues might have other topics in mind. As reid wilson recently noted in the washington post, legislators in 27 states have passed applications for a Constitutional Convention to pass a balanced Budget Amendment, and proponents in another state where republicans control both legislative chambers are pushing for passage. Do you support the move to a convention . A lot of people think there are dangers because it is not clear how it would operate and what subjects it could deal with. Senator lee i am one of those people that think there are dangers there because all 27 times we have amended the constitution we have followed one procedure, where congress proposes, the states ratify. The alternative is where two thirds of the state call for congress to convene a convention, congress convenes such a convention, and they become ratified. I was taught growing up by my late father that there was great risk in this because we had never had a Constitutional Convention, at least not since 1787. The last time we started with a convention, we came out with something altogether different. My dads view was lets leave good enough alone as far as calling for another convention. He has been dead 19 years, and some would argue that in those 19 years a lot has happened to suggest that congress cannot be counted on to propose amendments that we needed, and that the american people, who pretty overwhelmingly support the idea of a balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution. I will continue to push for a balanced Budget Amendment through congress, which is where i serve. That is within my ability to control. If the states want to call for a convention, i suspect they will continue to do so. Mr. Cook i do read things other than the washington post, but there was a fascinating column by Robert Samuelson on the idea of balancing the budget, and in essence, the argument was either party it would be very hard to do without either party having to swallow a fair amount of ideology, republicans eating to admit that without tax increases, big and probably dangerous cuts in defense are inevitable democrats needing to concede that all the spending for the elderly is not sacrosanct, although i choke when i say that as you see the color of my hair. What is your view about the level of hypocrisy that is involved in calling for a balanced Budget Amendment when we know that voters want more spending than they are willing to pay for . Senator lee i do not know if it is fair to call it hypocrisy. I think these are difficult questions. Difficult, weighty questions. They also would involve an overarching question that looks at the amount of debt that we have accumulated, about 18 trillion. In fact, we are paying about 285 billion in interest on that debt. That is a lot of money. The scary part is it is roughly the same debt we had 20 years ago when the debt was a small fraction of its current size about 1 5 of its current size. Eventually, the artificially historically low yield rates we are paying on treasury instruments are likely to return to the historical average, even assuming there is not a rebound above the historical average. Even if they just returned to the historical average, it will not be very long after that before we are paying close to 1 trillion a year in interest on our debt, and that will threaten all kinds of things. So, in addition to the fact that it has been said that our National Debt may well present one of our biggest single threats to our national security, it also presents one of our biggest single threats to Everything Else that we do. Mr. Cook do you worry about tying the hands of the government at a time when you might need to prime the pump . Senator lee i do, and i also worry about the government not having its hands tied to make sure that it shores up the very programs that are important to shore up. Mr. Cook eric watson from bloomberg. Mr. Watson your tax plan does raise taxes on some middle earners, and as been discussion on the right about the Child Tax Credit. Can you explain a little bit why that makes sense, and do you think senator rubio, should he announced for president , can win the nomination based on this . Senator lee ok. As for the first part of the question, here is what we are trying to accomplish there. In addition to other features of the tax plan, we are trying to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and the parent tax penalty. The Child Tax Credit is directed at the parent tax penalty, a little known but significant feature in our existing tax code that has the effect of sort of taxing American Parents twice. Once when they pay their taxes on the individual side, and on the payroll side, and again, as they incur the substantial costs of raising children. According to the u. S. Department of agriculture, it costs on average, 300,000 to raise a child to maturity. Todays children will become tomorrows workers, taxpayers will be paying the benefits of tomorrows retirees. Relative to our entitlement programs, hardworking parents get hit twice. Imagine two hypothetical couples, and imagine for tax purposes they are virtually identical sets of twins similar incomes, charitable conservation patterns, similar deductions except that couple a has four children, couple b chooses to remain childless. While raising children, couple a will incur 1. 2 million on average. Couple b will not have that expense. Couple a has produced four different taxpayers that will sure plans for anyone that retired that shore up plans for everyone that retires. The Child Tax Credit does not offset that disparity altogether, but it is meant to soften it. As to the question of whether senator rubio can wind on this tax plan, if you mean this tax plan in of itself is doing to win in the white house, i do not think anyone will win as a one trick pony, but i do think it is a good plan, and he is a good candidate. Should he get in, i think he will do well. Mr. Cook michael . Michael on the current plan to punish him for the 2013 shutdown [indiscernible] senator lee he may have felt a difference at the time. I am not aware of a conspiracy to shut us out of anything and im not aware of any one person or one group of people who has the ability to do that. Reporter senator paul has this legislation that lets states implement their own medical marijuana laws and make these no longer breaking federal law. Is that something you support on the Judiciary Committee . What is your stance on that . Senator lee is this the one where hes running with senator and had a long conversation with senator joe brand the other day. As i recall, it would move marijuana from a schedule one to a schedule two, is that right . Reporter right. It has some medical benefit and allows states that legalize it to regulate it. Senator lee one of the reasons for doing that, that senator gillibrand told me about is that you have some states in which there are researchers who are anxious to do research on Cannabinoid Oil as a treatment for epilepsy and other disorders and unable to do it and thats one of the reasons for doing it. Im looking at this legislation and i havent made a decision on it yet. Its worth considering. Reporter do you think the federal government should have overarching policies on that . Senator lee i think you can state a strong argument that a state ought to be able to allow for the the intrastate production and use of a particular medical treatment. That is of course not the system we have now, and so its its tough to ignore the realities of the current system. But senators paul and Gillibrand Jill Brant have made a strong case for this modest action might be warranted. I havent decided how im going to come down on it yet, and im looking closely at it. Reporter senator, couple of questions. What kind of a royalty and or advance did you get for the book and did you have a ghost writer or did you write this yourself . And unrelated to this, your three best friends are running for president. Are you trying to keep neutral that . Any advice youve given them and which one will you back . Senator lee good questions. I wrote it on my own time. I dont discuss the particulars of the royalty agreement. Publicly although ill be required to disclose on an annual basis any royalties i receive from year to year on that. So youll see that when that happens. Yeah, i do have Three Friends in the senate, three of my very closest allies in the senate all appear to be running for president. And, you know, its a tough thing any time you have three of your favorite coworkers who all decide to run for president at time. , first time its ever happened to me. I hope to be as supportive as i can of all three of them because i genuinely like all three of them. For that reason, im not inclined to endorse any one of them at this point because i cant endorse one of them without sort of unendorsing one of the others, and at this point i dont see any reason to do that. [indiscernible] senator lee ill be on the ballot in exactly one state and thats your state and my state in utah. Mr. Cook can i ask you just a quick followup. A recent utah policy poll showed that 37 of voters wanted you as the g. O. P. Nominee in 2016 while 30 chose josh romney. Do you expect a primary battle . Senator lee i dont know. I think thats an about a year away, and im getting ready for anything that might come my way, preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. Reporter senator, the 2016 president ial race, what are you looking for in a nominee for the party, and what kind of nominee do you think the voters in the republican party, the activists around the country, want to see . Theyve had john mc cain in 2008 and mitt romney in 2012. What are the qualities that are important now . Senator lee ive done several speeches on this. Id like to see a candidate who is principaled and positive and proven. Principle of meaning somebody who is not afraid to admit why he or she is a conservative, not afraid to demonstrate that commitment to conservative principles by embracing proactive, conservative agenda to explain how it is those conservative principles can be used to promote economic mobility in america, to help expand the middle class, to help those who are unemployed or underemployed expand their opportunities, and somebody who has got some kind of track record somewhere proving a commitment to these things. And i think weve got a pretty strong field of candidates so far, and it may well continue to grow. At this point, the more the merrier. Reporter does it give you any concerns that the money folks seem to be rallying so early around jeb bush . Senator lee does it concern me . No. Im not terribly surprised by that, and again, were still in the early stages of this, and so were waiting to see who is going to take off and who isnt. Mr. Cook we will go to other reporters. That will take us a good deal into the hour. Reporter without violating your reluctance to endorse anyone could you give us your sense of the three candidates what are your strengths and weaknesses are in the race . Senator lee you had to go with the weaknesses part. Lets start with the strengths at least. So well go in order of when they announced, i suppose. Ted cruz and i both come from similar professional backgrounds. Were both appellate litigators and served as law clerks at the Supreme Court and we tend to approach issues, particularly constitutional issues, in a similar way. Ideologically, i share a lot in common with ted cruz, and i like his passion, and i like his dedication to conservative principles and his willingness to fight even when its hard. I have an enormous amount of respect for him. Some of those same characteristics have been characterized by some as a weakness and achilles heel for him. Well see how the primary election voters feel about that at the end of the day. Rand paul announced next. Rand and i have been friends. Before i met rand paul, i read a column by george will. It said if he were elected, they would become best friends and that turn said out to be true. I have always enjoyed my association with rand from almost the very first moment we were headed to the senate floor. Within our first weeks in office and rand asked me how i was going to vote on a particular bill, and i told him i thought i was going to vote for it, and he identified some concerns. I didnt share his concern but i was impressed that he was willing to do the work to find it. I still vividly remember the moment he went to the floor and decided to speak for 13 hours at a time in one sitting on drone strikes, and that was exciting. Some would say that the achilles heel for him would be on foreign policy. But there again, others would view that as his strength. With rubio, i also met rubio pretty early on. I think i met rubio the soonest, very early in 2010 when we were both running. I saw him speak at cpac and immediately impressed with his speaking ability. Im not sure that i ever at least among the current field of president ial candidates, i dont know that we have any other candidate who is as good as rubio is at communicating and delivering a speech and inviting the audience into an emotional journey as he speaks. Hes one of these guys who can bring grown men to tears very quickly with emotion speaking about his great love for our country. Hes got great vision and he is an outstanding communicator one of the best natural athle